Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Peter Olcott
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 15:49:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a240f883e6fab320d230c91e03ab5b00240bb927@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v647p3$29pag$6@dont-email.me>
 <v6480h$2ape0$1@dont-email.me> <v648nk$29pag$8@dont-email.me>
 <v64as3$2bc8m$1@dont-email.me> <v64drn$29pag$10@dont-email.me>
 <v64e92$2bvgc$1@dont-email.me> <v65juc$2lui5$2@dont-email.me>
 <v665c9$2oun1$4@dont-email.me> <v66t0p$2n56v$1@dont-email.me>
 <v66t7p$2srk8$1@dont-email.me> <v66tql$2n56v$3@dont-email.me>
 <v66u56$2suut$1@dont-email.me> <v66v8i$2n56v$4@dont-email.me>
 <v67028$2t9el$1@dont-email.me> <v68b3f$2n56v$5@dont-email.me>
 <v68ocd$39dkv$5@dont-email.me> <v68pfo$2n56v$7@dont-email.me>
 <v68rnv$39tml$2@dont-email.me> <v68tvd$3ac9t$1@dont-email.me>
 <v68uj0$3ahel$1@dont-email.me> <v694k4$3bevk$1@dont-email.me>
 <v69502$3bh3f$1@dont-email.me> <v6b1k4$3odj5$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bf7r$3qiio$2@dont-email.me> <v6bm5v$3rj8n$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6bmoe$3ri0l$2@dont-email.me> <v6bnt2$3rj8n$3@dont-email.me>
 <v6brfj$3skuk$2@dont-email.me> <v6c3vh$3ttem$1@dont-email.me>
 <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 19:49:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381982"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v6c539$3u2mj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4006
Lines: 49

On 7/6/24 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 1:55 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 06.jul.2024 om 18:30 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/6/2024 10:29 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So, why do you disagree that the x86 code specifies an HHH that 
>>>> aborts and halts? 
>>>
>>> Dishonest dodge of changing the subject. This is called
>>> the strawman deception and is a favorite tactic of liars.
>>
>> Irrelevant text ignored. You talked about x86, therefore continuing to 
>> talk about x86 is not a change of subject.
>> I know you have difficulties to recognize the truth, so I do not feel 
>> offended, because: 'Don't assume somebody is wilfully wrong, if 
>> incompetence could be an explanation, as well.'
>>
>>>
>>> If you sufficiently understand the semantics of the x86
>>> language then you can see that the call to HHH(DDD) from
>>> DDD simulated according to the semantics of the x86 language
>>> cannot possibly return.
>>
>> I understand enough of it to see that it cannot possibly return, 
>> because HHH cannot possibly simulate itself correctly.
> 
> According to the semantics of the x86 language IS IS IMPOSSIBLE
> FOR DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN AND IT IS EQUALLY IMPOSSIBLE
> FOR THE HHH(DDD) CALLED BY DDD SIMULATED BY HHH TO RETURN.
> 
> I can't tell that you are ignorant or a liar and it is reaching
> the point where I don't care which it is.
> 

No, according to the semantic of the x86 language, since HHH DOES 
return, then the DDD that is being simulated WILL RETURN, it is just not 
within the simulation that HHH does.

You are confusing the machine with the simulation of the machine.

The DDD simulated by HHH is the machine, "simulated" just being a 
modifier to make clear which DDD we are talking about. And that machine 
does return.

You seem to mean, the PARTIAL SIMULATION of DDD by HHH. And that PARTIAL 
simulation does not reach that point, because HHH gave up.

Your inability to understand this difference, either makes YOU the idiot 
if it is a true lack of understanding, or a liar if you understand it 
but refuse to accept it.